Indian Journal of Urology Users online:488  
IJU
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
  Table of Contents 
COMMENTARY
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 30  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 368
 

Commenatry on Gautam G. Is it truly outrageous to consider radical prostatectomy for men with metastatic prostate cancer? Indian J Urol 2014;30:366-7


Associate Editor, Indian Journal of Urology, Associate Professor of Urology, Christian Medical College, Vellore - 632 004, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Web Publication1-Oct-2014

Correspondence Address:
Arabind Panda
Associate Editor, Indian Journal of Urology, Associate Professor of Urology, Christian Medical College, Vellore - 632 004, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.142053

Rights and Permissions

 

How to cite this article:
Panda A. Commenatry on Gautam G. Is it truly outrageous to consider radical prostatectomy for men with metastatic prostate cancer? Indian J Urol 2014;30:366-7 . Indian J Urol 2014;30:368

How to cite this URL:
Panda A. Commenatry on Gautam G. Is it truly outrageous to consider radical prostatectomy for men with metastatic prostate cancer? Indian J Urol 2014;30:366-7 . Indian J Urol [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Jul 22];30:368. Available from: http://www.indianjurol.com/text.asp?2014/30/4/368/142053


The concept of radical prostatectomy for metastatic prostate cancer is interesting. The rationale of debulking in metastatic cancer is derived from the experience in gastric and ovarian carcinomas where debulking and systemic chemotherapy have shown a survival benefit. The essential difference between adenocarcinoma prostate and these cell types is the absence of an equally effective chemotherapeutic regimen for prostate cancer. Hormonal ablation alone invariably leads to castration resistant disease in the course of time.

Patients who received local therapy in the SEER study could be a highly selected group. A retrospective analysis, particularly from a registry, has disadvantages. The reasons for selecting a treatment may not be adequately documented. Further, the comparisons would be biased if the groups (without surgery or radiation therapy) were not adequately matched. In fact, in this study, they are unmatched. The prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels were >30 ng/dl in 61.6% of patients of the no surgery or radiation group but only 13 % of patients in the radical prostatectomy group had similar levels of PSA. The grade and exact TNM stage was unknown in a significant number of patients in the no surgery group while the documentation was much better in the local therapy group, perhaps an example of selection bias. [1]

The paper using data from the Munich cancer registry also suffers from similar issues. The groups and unmatched and per se the patients who underwent radical prostatectomy had lesser disease bulk than those who did not. [2] The message that comes out of this research is that there appears to be a role for lymphadenectomy in radical prostatectomy and the subset of patients who may have disease that has not spread beyond the regional lymph nodes may have the greatest benefit from this approach. [3]

Cytoreductive surgery has been tried in renal cell carcinoma (along with targeted therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors), with reports of improved survival in a retrospective series. However, the benefit was minimal in poor risk disease. [4] The question for renal cell carcinoma is likely to be answered with the multinational, prospective, randomized trial that is underway (CARMENA: NCT00930033).

For a similar trial to be attempted in carcinoma prostate, it will have to be powered to detect differences in outcome in the subset analysis as benefit, if any, is likely to be seen in a highly selected group. At the moment, based on current evidence, cytoreductive prostatectomy in metastatic disease remains investigational.

 
   References Top

1.Culp SH, Schellhammer PF, Williams MB. Might men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer benefit from definitive treatment of the primary tumor? A SEER-Based Study. Eur Urol 2014;65:1058-66.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Engel J, Bastian PJ, Baur H, Beer V, Chaussy C, Juergen E, et al. Survival benefit of radical prostatectomy in lymph node-positive patients with prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2010;57:754-61.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Studer UE, Collette L, Sylvester R. Comment: Can radical prostatectomy benefit patients despite the presence of regional metastases? Eur Urol 2010;57:762-3.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.Choueiri TK, Xie W, Kollmannsberger C, North S, Knox JJ, Lampard JG, et al. The impact of cytoreductive nephrectomy on survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy. J Urol 2011;185:60-6.  Back to cited text no. 4
    




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

 
   Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (219 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1297    
    Printed27    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded88    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

HEALTHWARE INDIA